OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread

[Lord Raziere]

Does it matter? At all?

Yes, because you can still have a fixed gender even if your shapeshifter, and a non-fixed fluid gender even if you only have one form.

[Jormengand]

Does it matter? At all?

Well, no more than my or your or anyone else's gender.

So, "Yes," basically.

[Sadsharks]

I think its less "Rich put a gay person in the strip" and more "Rich put a gay person in the strip while also pushing X Y and Z values at the same time." If feels forced to many people, and it certainly seems like he put it in there not because his message needed it, or the story needed it, but because he wanted it in there. Rich has always been pushing an agenda, but this strip seems to be the first step in a path several authors have taken where the story comes secondary to their agenda, rather than Rich putting them equally and harmoniously up til now.

Why is it inherently wrong for him to simply "want it in there"? Why does absolutely everything have to relate to and advance the main plot/message?

[Aquillion]

And that is exactly why she would be trans if she shape-shifted into a male. She would be male-sexed and female-gendered, and therefore definitively trans.

Maybe. It's magic, and she herself is a magical being; there's no reason to think that those things correspond to what we're familiar with and the way we divide things up conceptually, and it's also possible shapeshifting includes mental effects to reduce or eliminate dysphoria associated with the new form.

Even in the real world, there are people with more complicated gender identities than 'male' and 'female'; it's not a stretch to assume that a shapeshifter who was raised in an entirely alien culture might not really think about our gender binary the way we typically do. She probably identifies as female given that she's a member of an always-female race and normally presents that way, but on the other hand the whole concept of an always-female race implies a take on gender that probably won't conform entirely to our norms.

I suspect from what we saw that she presents as female by default but doesn't actually put much of her identity in it the way most humans would and feels fundamentally natural in any form; she seemed completely casual about the idea of experimenting as a male, whereas Nale seemed squicked to recall it, so we can assume he was the one who it didn't work for.

(We don't even, strictly speaking, know that her female form is her default -- we've seen her in it most often, but it's possible that that's just because she has a fluid gender and decided to change physically in order to be compatible with Nale. She could have spent her time largely in a male form before meeting him. Wearing it after his death could be in memory of him or something similar.)

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Sometimes I hate being right.

I'm not entirely sure I get what that is; the Wikipedia article didn't really help. Care to explain?

Frankly, seeing Bandana's name misspelled in this thread is more jarring than anything in the comic. (Especially "Banana", I get confused for a split second each time )

I kept noticing that too. You of all people should know that misspelling has happened before, though.

Another thing that jarred me (that Porthos already commented on) was that Bandana didn't strike them as female until recently.

[Czhorat]

I think its less "Rich put a gay person in the strip" and more "Rich put a gay person in the strip while also pushing X Y and Z values at the same time." If feels forced to many people, and it certainly seems like he put it in there not because his message needed it, or the story needed it, but because he wanted it in there. Rich has always been pushing an agenda, but this strip seems to be the first step in a path several authors have taken where the story comes secondary to their agenda, rather than Rich putting them equally and harmoniously up til now.

Haley's tone strikes me as very similar to the way she (and other characters) discuss other tropes. If people feel uncomfortable with it, I think it says more about what they think of these particular ideas than it does about the story.

[Keltest]

Why is it inherently wrong for him to simply "want it in there"? Why does absolutely everything have to relate to and advance the main plot/message?

its not explicitly wrong, but as has been mentioned a few times when an author starts seriously pushing a political or social message through their comic, it often marks a serious downturn in the quality of the comic. And regardless of what Rich may write for, a lot of us come here for the comic first, and the message, well... not.

[Vinsfeld]

I'd definitely buy the action figures.

[Gryndel]

Some demons, daemons, and devils are typically depicted as male or female in their natural form. Many are so alien in form that their gender seems ambiguous at best.

So does that mean that dretch and lemure, quasits and imps are asexual?

[Jormengand]

its not explicitly wrong, but as has been mentioned a few times when an author starts seriously pushing a political or social message through their comic, it often marks a serious downturn in the quality of the comic. And regardless of what Rich may write for, a lot of us come here for the comic first, and the message, well... not.

You know, it's funny how many people are so upset that Rich isn't leaving these silly real-world issues out of the comic, and instead are wondering what happened to good old-fashioned escapism. Does it not occur to any of these people, I wonder, that perhaps some female or LGBT people might also want to escape, say, into a world where they aren't marginalised?

But then, who are we to ask anything of a story other than straight males? Oh, and perhaps the odd woman here and there, but let's not do a Belkar (Go overboard? No?) here; they all have to be supporting characters so that the straight males can get on with the all-important storyline events of the comic.

[Porthos]

I'm not entirely sure I get what that is; the Wikipedia article didn't really help. Care to explain?

I'll try to make this quick. Lewis's Law, more simply stated, is that whenever the subject of gender politics/issues is brought up, even tangentially, it can get pretty awful and sexist at times as the discussion goes on. Thus showing that Feminism still has a long way to go before it isn't 'needed' to be actively thought of anymore. In a way, it's a variation of the original formulation of Godwin's Law (As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1).

That's the Cliff Notes version, at least. It's been referenced elsewhere on this board by the mods over in the RPG sections in the past. Usually as a pre-emptive strike whenever gender issues start arising in threads.

Actually, this thread's been decent along those lines (*knocks repeatedly on wood*). But it's still been poking around from the edges (and, occasionaly, not from the edges at all). There's been more than one comment that has had me gritting my teeth, but ultimately passing on.

So, could be worse (not that this is an invitation for it to be worse ), but I still felt like sighing. T'was better than some of the alternatives I was thinking about.

[Kish]

I'm not entirely sure I get what that is; the Wikipedia article didn't really help. Care to explain?

"The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism."

[Keltest]

You know, it's funny how many people are so upset that Rich isn't leaving these silly real-world issues out of the comic, and instead are wondering what happened to good old-fashioned escapism. Does it not occur to any of these people, I wonder, that perhaps some female or LGBT people might also want to escape, say, into a world where they aren't marginalised?

But then, who are we to ask anything of a story other than straight males? Oh, and perhaps the odd woman here and there, but let's not do a Belkar (Go overboard? No?) here; they all have to be supporting characters so that the straight males can get on with the all-important storyline events of the comic.

Ok, if youre just going to ignore what im actually saying and attack what you think were saying, im not going to bother continuing this conversation. Its clear what you think is being said is more important to you than whats actually being said.

[Haleth]

its not explicitly wrong, but as has been mentioned a few times when an author starts seriously pushing a political or social message through their comic, it often marks a serious downturn in the quality of the comic. And regardless of what Rich may write for, a lot of us come here for the comic first, and the message, well... not.

I'm sorry, but if showing some diversity between two female characters in terms of sexuality, personality, and deconstructing stereotypes is "seriously pushing a political or social message", then you're going to be hard-pressed to find a comic anywhere that won't upset you.

[Jormengand]

Ok, if youre just going to ignore what im actually saying and attack what you think were saying, im not going to bother continuing this conversation. Its clear what you think is being said is more important to you than whats actually being said.

Or perhaps you could explain the difference between complaining that people are putting real-life issues in their comic and complaining that people are putting real-life issues it their comic, rather than refusing to debate me because you haven't the faintest clue how to refute my points. Or you could summon the intellectual honesty to admit, at least, that you are doing the latter.

[Sadsharks]

You know, it's funny how many people are so upset that Rich isn't leaving these silly real-world issues out of the comic, and instead are wondering what happened to good old-fashioned escapism. Does it not occur to any of these people, I wonder, that perhaps some female or LGBT people might also want to escape, say, into a world where they aren't marginalised?

But then, who are we to ask anything of a story other than straight males? Oh, and perhaps the odd woman here and there, but let's not do a Belkar (Go overboard? No?) here; they all have to be supporting characters so that the straight males can get on with the all-important storyline events of the comic.

Exactly how I feel. As a bisexual person it is so much more enjoyable and easy to read anything when I know that the author isn't bigoted.

Also, for everyone claiming that OotS is no longer "escapist"...has it not occurred to you that the very thought of a black person in a leading position with a woman as his second-in-command is already absurd by the standards of the Middle Ages where OotS is (essentially) set? Having mixed-race lesbian pirates is hardly different.

[Koo Rehtorb]

After thinking it over for a while, I think it feels forced just because of how all this stuff is crammed into one comic. Any one of these things would have been just fine on its own, but putting it all together makes it feel like he's going down a checklist ticking them off one by one, which makes it kind of jarring.

Might have been better to split it up into a few different strips over time, but I don't pretend to be a better writer than Rich so what do I know?

[Keltest]

Or perhaps you could explain the difference between complaining that people are putting real-life issues in their comic and complaining that people are putting real-life issues it their comic, rather than refusing to debate me because you haven't the faintest clue how to refute my points. Or you could summon the intellectual honesty to admit, at least, that you are doing the latter.

People are not complaining about the message, its the implementation that bothers people. If he had just left that "my ex" comment stand alone without emphasizing any issues, and if it was the only message in that panel, it would sit fine with most people. But he had a character outright say "Those things are terrible!" That's about as overt and unsubtle you can get without abandoning any pretense of a story.

Historically when an author does that, it indicates a drop in the quality of the story itself. We are not objecting to the idea that there can be a gay person in the story without emphasizing that fact as part of the story, or the idea that female D&D armor is objectifying women, or anything like that. We are objecting to the idea that Rich might start just coming out and saying it instead of actually taking the effort to write it well.

[Haleth]

People are not complaining about the message, its the implementation that bothers people. If he had just left that "my ex" comment stand alone without emphasizing any issues, and if it was the only message in that panel, it would sit fine with most people. But he had a character outright say "Those things are terrible!" That's about as overt and unsubtle you can get without abandoning any pretense of a story.

Rich has lampshaded tropes and other issues in the past in variously unsubtle ways. Why should this be any different?

At the end of the day, it's Rich's comic. He addresses the issues he wants to, in the way he wants to. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to keep reading.

[zimmerwald1915]

You know, it's funny how many people are so upset that Rich isn't leaving these silly real-world issues out of the comic, and instead are wondering what happened to good old-fashioned escapism. Does it not occur to any of these people, I wonder, that perhaps some female or LGBT people might also want to escape, say, into a world where they aren't marginalised?

But then, who are we to ask anything of a story other than straight males? Oh, and perhaps the odd woman here and there, but let's not do a Belkar (Go overboard? No?) here; they all have to be supporting characters so that the straight males can get on with the all-important storyline events of the comic.

Two points. First, how is Bandana not a "supporting character?" Second, the only character that cannot be argued to be a supporting character, Roy Greenhilt, is a straight person of color who is currently a man but at one point was a man with a female body. Whatever problems I have with the politics of The Order of the Stick, it has never been a straight white cis male only club.

[Sir Slug]

I've been reading OOtS for ~10 years, never commented. Looong time nerd girl and gamer girl.

I just wanted to say that this comic, specifically the intent with which it was written (to do right by your readers), and acknowledging your personal growth on sexism in particular, means a lot to me. More than I can say in any articulate manner. But I wanted to let you know it made a big impact on at least one person out there. Thank you, Rich.

[Eloi]

[carefully side-steps people's misplaced criticism that the comic is preachy]

I'm glad Bandana is getting more characterization, and I would totally buy those action figures!

[Porthos]

That's about as overt and unsubtle you can get without abandoning any pretense of a story.

Overt and unsubtle.

Hmmmm. I'd like to introduce you to a little comic called The Order of the Stick. It's been known to be incredibly unsubtle at times. Especially when it comes to self-deprecation.

Also, I'm gonna leave this link here. And I make zero apologies for the source:

Some Anvils Need to be Dropped.

Along those lines, and taking the Page Quote from the link:

"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack."
— Winston Churchill

PS: The working title for A Christmas Carol? The Sledgehammer.

PPS: Even if one thinks this update was unsubtle, and even if one thinks it was out of place, I would tend to think Rich has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his writing.

That people are seriously bringing up Sinfest and the like as an actual comparison is mind boggling. Utterly mind boggling.

Frankly this seems to be mountains out of molehills. Especially considering how many times Rich has taken potshots at himself in the comic (or titles of comics) before.

[Haleth]

Two points. First, how is Bandana not a "supporting character?" Second, the only character that cannot be argued to be a supporting character, Roy Greenhilt, is a straight person of color who is currently a man but at one point was a man with a female body.

Supporting characters aren't banned from having a personality. I would argue that being able to Bandanna a recognizable, separate personality from Haley even though she's only been around in the past dozen or so strips is an example of good writing.

Also, I don't know how relevant the Roy example is. The whole gender-change-belt arc wasn't the most seriously representative or politically correct arc in the comic.

[Jormengand]

After thinking it over for a while, I think it feels forced just because of how all this stuff is crammed into one comic. Any one of these things would have been just fine on its own, but putting it all together makes it feel like he's going down a checklist ticking them off one by one, which makes it kind of jarring.

Might have been better to split it up into a few different strips over time, but I don't pretend to be a better writer than Rich so what do I know?

See, I didn't read it as forced. In fact, I completely glossed over the mixed-race aspect of it, and I've forgotten completely what the third one was already. Oh, was it women? It seems perfectly normal for two women to be talking together, so I can't believe that was it...

In any case, it reads perfectly clearly if you're not of the mindset that any of these things are "Weird." One day, someone will go back and read the comic, and this thread, and wonder what all of the fuss was about.

People are not complaining about the message, its the implementation that bothers people. If he had just left that "my ex" comment stand alone without emphasizing any issues, and if it was the only message in that panel, it would sit fine with most people. But he had a character outright say "Those things are terrible!" That's about as overt and unsubtle you can get without abandoning any pretense of a story.

Historically when an author does that, it indicates a drop in the quality of the story itself. We are not objecting to the idea that there can be a gay person in the story without emphasizing that fact as part of the story, or the idea that female D&D armor is objectifying women, or anything like that. We are objecting to the idea that Rich might start just coming out and saying it instead of actually taking the effort to write it well.

Huh? He did let the ex comment stand alone. He literally wrote the exact same lines for Bandanna that he might have had she been a guy (obviously, Haley's previous lines wouldn't have made sense, but that's not the point). There was no flashiness about her being a lesbian, it just happened and wasn't mentioned again. There was no flashiness about her being mixed-race, it just happened and wasn't mentioned again.

Two points. First, how is Bandana not a "supporting character?" Second, the only character that cannot be argued to be a supporting character, Roy Greenhilt, is a straight person of color who is currently a man but at one point was a man with a female body.

I didn't say she wasn't. I was saying people were objecting to the idea that Rich put real-world issues in on the basis of escapism - in fact, there being coloured and sex-switching characters only makes their points more silly.

[Keltest]

Huh? He did let the ex comment stand alone. He literally wrote the exact same lines for Bandanna that he might have had she been a guy (obviously, Haley's previous lines wouldn't have made sense, but that's not the point). There was no flashiness about her being a lesbian, it just happened and wasn't mentioned again. There was no flashiness about her being mixed-race, it just happened and wasn't mentioned again.

Right, and then he went on to say "oh, this is bad too. And this. Any of those could have stood alone in a comic, integrated well, and not seemed forced. As it is, the checklist analogy works well because it does come off as Rich saying "this is bad. And so is this. And this."

It is not bad to have the message. It is bad when the inclusion of the message makes (part of) your audience feel like you are sacrificing story quality to include it when such sacrifice is not necessary.

[Haleth]

Right, and then he went on to say "oh, this is bad too. And this. Any of those could have stood alone in a comic, integrated well, and not seemed forced. As it is, the checklist analogy works well because it does come off as Rich saying "this is bad. And so is this. And this."

It is not bad to have the message. It is bad when the inclusion of the message makes (part of) your audience feel like you are sacrificing story quality to include it when such sacrifice is not necessary.

Are we reading the same comic? I'm pretty sure OotS constantly does this with things like common clichés, story tropes, etc. Why are actual representational issues different?

The only really "calling-out" line is the one at the bottom. Rich does stuff like that a lot. Bandanna's others comments aren't shoved in our faces.

[Jormengand]

Right, and then he went on to say "oh, this is bad too. And this. Any of those could have stood alone in a comic, integrated well, and not seemed forced. As it is, the checklist analogy works well because it does come off as Rich saying "this is bad. And so is this. And this."

It is not bad to have the message. It is bad when the inclusion of the message makes (part of) your audience feel like you are sacrificing story quality to include it when such sacrifice is not necessary.

See, it was either dropping them all in one comic, getting it over with, and then getting back to the comic, or it was spending a comic on lesbians, a comic on women, a comic on mixed race people, blah-di-blah. The comic made precisely nothing of the fact that she was mixed-race or a lesbian: it was shown to be so, and then they both moved on. If you read the webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, you will notice that more recent strips include homosexuals for no reason - but then, why not include homosexuals? Would the story have been any better if instead of "Ex... when we split" Bandanna had said "Sister... when she left home"? On that note, what difference would it have made if you had watched two blacks or two whites, one's hand holding that of her child? They are things which happen, which are irrelevant, which do not at all slow down the story, nor are they forced.

[zimmerwald1915]

Supporting characters aren't banned from having a personality. I would argue that being able to Bandanna a recognizable, separate personality from Haley even though she's only been around in the past dozen or so strips is an example of good writing.

That's not the point I was making and you know it. Jormengand may deny that the implication was intended, but, as proved by the fact that I inferred it, the post implied that Bandana was more than a supporting character. Meantime, I've argued that members of the Order themselves are supporting characters. So there's just a profound disconnect here.

Also, I don't know how relevant the Roy example is. The whole gender-change-belt arc wasn't the most seriously representative or politically correct arc in the comic.

I've appended a sentence to my post to make this clearer. As for the value of the arc, it ended woith Durkon seriously asking whether Roy wanted to change back, giving his perspective as an autonomous person the weight it deserved, the way a sex-reassignment surgeon who knows their business might counsel a patient.

[Porthos]

Right, and then he went on to say "oh, this is bad too. And this. Any of those could have stood alone in a comic, integrated well, and not seemed forced. As it is, the checklist analogy works well because it does come off as Rich saying "this is bad. And so is this. And this."

It is not bad to have the message. It is bad when the inclusion of the message makes (part of) your audience feel like you are sacrificing story quality to include it when such sacrifice is not necessary.

The point was that they WERE connected. This means it was a part of the storytelling.

That some people didn't like it is neither here nor there. Can't please all of the people all of the time and all that.

In fact, if he had dragged it out over several strips, I absolutely guarantee you he'd have more negative comments about 'stringing this issue along' and 'why are you constantly talking about this' and 'just get it over with already' and whatnot.

'sides each comment naturally flowed into the next. And all of the comments by Haley were perfectly within character, IMO (especially the bit about her monatizing her adventures ). Haley's* self-deprecating comment at the end just tied it up in a nice, neat, bow.

Honestly, I STILL can't really get my head around most of the fuss here.

* I.e. Rich Burlew.